>Microsoft can not remove your access to the files unless they're doing on the fly encryption. They also have no reason to do that.
Imagine someone running BitLocker. Imagine that for some reason that person's copy of Vista got flagged as unauthorized, and dropped into a mode with reduced functionality.
That reduced functionality had bloody well better include file system access, because otherwise not even booting from a live CD will recover the data.
If it's possible to put as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we have and *not* get a climate effect, that would be one of the most astonishing scientific results in history.
>Any true follower of science must reject "consensus" for what it is: argument by authority.
Granted, few of us can afford to check their work the way we could check a result in chemistry, by building a planet and measuring what happens to it.
But it's not "argument by authority" when the people being cited love to argue. It's not like a church where anyone who speaks about doctrine has sworn obedience to the hierarchy.
Looking for consensus isn't proof, but it's a good heuristic. Another heuristic is to pay more attention to people who admit uncertainties. Climatologists admit they have huge variation in their forecasts, ranging from serious warming to catastrophic warming.
>The only thing I can think of is to understand as much of the issue as we can for ourselves rather than from the media. That's something I definitely need to work harder on.
>Why shouldn't you be liable for what you publish?
The opinion is explicit that libel victims have recourse against the person who libeled them.
The exemption is for service providers and conduits, and a single illustration proves how necessary it is. Imagine a defamatory statement on Usenet. Thousands of sites will be passing that statement along, storing it, and showing it to users. If the hosts and forwarders were in the legal line of fire, they'd shut down and there wouldn't be a Usenet. Most of us would intuit that it's unfair to sue a backbone provider for defamatory postings.
Some of the founders didn't want a bill of rights. They were completely fine with the rights idea, they were just afraid that people would decide it was an exhaustive list or get the idea that the government grants rights.
The Diebold in the back of the polling place last time I voted had a headset, presumably for giving voice prompts to walk a completely blind person through the process.
Stolen passwords, shared passwords, forgotten passwords, keyloggers, mysterious 500 errors, undue influence applied to vulnerable voters, difficulty in reaching poor or highly mobile voters. I'd go on but I have to run an errand.
>the "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution and, IIRC, is not in any official government document.
No, that exact character string is not in the Constitution, and it doesn't need to be given the multiple clauses disentangling religion and government.
"Separation of church and state" isn't in the Bible either, but Jesus drew the distinction repeatedly: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" in Matthew 22:21, and "My kingdom is not of this world" is John 18:36.
What they can do is ask jurors during voir dire whether they'll vote to convict if that's where the facts point, and exclude from the jury anyone who intends to vote on whether they approve of the law.
In other words, the six or twelve people deciding whether you go to jail for violating $UNJUST_LAW are either unwilling to practice jury nullification, or they're dishonest enough to lie under oath.
If you've been called for jury duty you've heard exactly that question put to the prospective jurors.
Plants photosynthesize from visible light, and if you want particulates in the atmosphere just stop using scrubbers on power plants. And Mt. St. Helens was 24 megatons, the largest human test was 60 megatons (though everything in current arsenals is smaller).
Ever been outdoors on a clear spring or winter night? It's colder without clouds. Clouds hold in heat on the night side.
Low-level clouds shade the ground but the reflected sunlight just warms up the lower atmosphere on its round trip. Very high clouds have a cooling effect, though.
Fortunately, the work on climate change is being done by people who understand these effects and who observe and refine numbers for them.
This is a local attack by an unprivileged thread, one that could not install a keylogger, read another user's files, or do much of anything except run its own code and measure the timing.
Offboard hardware acceleration would completely sidestep this particular attack.
Or keep the system so heavily loaded that the spy process can't tell whether it's sharing a BTB with the RSA computation or with one of the other N threads.
Or use a thread scheduler that assigns separate CPUs to crypto threads and to spyware threads:-)
Slashdot Mirror
"the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license" -- Judge Pregerson
>Microsoft can not remove your access to the files unless they're doing on the fly encryption. They also have no reason to do that.
Imagine someone running BitLocker. Imagine that for some reason that person's copy of Vista got flagged as unauthorized, and dropped into a mode with reduced functionality.
That reduced functionality had bloody well better include file system access, because otherwise not even booting from a live CD will recover the data.
(Be serious. Nobody in real life has backups).
>re-arrange the continents, change the vegetation cover, or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider.
Truly there is no precedent for the power of today's desktop computers.
>The same is true in every other field of scientific enquiry. Are you also dragging your feet on superconductors
Make your own high temperature superconductors with the resources of a high school science lab
>Science has been wrong several times about climate change in the past few decades (The big chill never happened, a
Here's a bibliography of 1970s era scientific papers about climate change.
>We may or may not have a role in the warming.
If it's possible to put as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we have and *not* get a climate effect, that would be one of the most astonishing scientific results in history.
>Any true follower of science must reject "consensus" for what it is: argument by authority.
Granted, few of us can afford to check their work the way we could check a result in chemistry, by building a planet and measuring what happens to it.
But it's not "argument by authority" when the people being cited love to argue. It's not like a church where anyone who speaks about doctrine has sworn obedience to the hierarchy.
Looking for consensus isn't proof, but it's a good heuristic. Another heuristic is to pay more attention to people who admit uncertainties. Climatologists admit they have huge variation in their forecasts, ranging from serious warming to catastrophic warming.
>The only thing I can think of is to understand as much of the issue as we can for ourselves rather than from the media. That's something I definitely need to work harder on.
As we all should and not just on this issue.
>Why shouldn't you be liable for what you publish?
The opinion is explicit that libel victims have recourse against the person who libeled them.
The exemption is for service providers and conduits, and a single illustration proves how necessary it is. Imagine a defamatory statement on Usenet. Thousands of sites will be passing that statement along, storing it, and showing it to users. If the hosts and forwarders were in the legal line of fire, they'd shut down and there wouldn't be a Usenet. Most of us would intuit that it's unfair to sue a backbone provider for defamatory postings.
A judge could and might look underneath the appearances and conclude that it was libel after all despite the attempt to launder it.
>Face facts- the reason why Islamic terrorism is so popular is precisely because atheists have become common.
Nothing to do with the fact that we arm and support tyrannical governments that violate Islamic laws about giving people trials before punishing them?
Some of the founders didn't want a bill of rights. They were completely fine with the rights idea, they were just afraid that people would decide it was an exhaustive list or get the idea that the government grants rights.
The Diebold in the back of the polling place last time I voted had a headset, presumably for giving voice prompts to walk a completely blind person through the process.
>Why do we all need to vote on the same day?
I believe the theory behind the law is to avoid gamesmanship and discouraged voters if the results are announced before voting finishes.
>Why do we need to congregate at designated areas?
Because coercion and vote buying is part of the threat model. Go into a booth where nobody can see you vote and both threats are mitigated.
>I can do my banking securely online, why not vote?
You can't, not in the age of phishing. Further answer from Bruce Schneier's blog: One of the dumber comments I hear about electronic voting goes something like this: "If we can secure multi-million-dollar financial transactions, we should be able to secure voting." Most financial security comes through audit: names are attached to every transaction, and transactions can be unwound if there are problems. Voting requires an anonymous ballot, which means that most of our anti-fraud systems from the financial world don't apply to voting. (I first explained this back in 2001.)
>I just don't see security being a huge problem.
Stolen passwords, shared passwords, forgotten passwords, keyloggers, mysterious 500 errors, undue influence applied to vulnerable voters, difficulty in reaching poor or highly mobile voters. I'd go on but I have to run an errand.
Storm the Gates programming competition
>What does religion have anything to do with setting up a wireless network?!
If you've ever tried to configure WPA in a multi-vendor installation you'll understand the necessity for prayer.
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."
George H. W. Bush, August 27, 1987.
>the "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution and, IIRC, is not in any official government document.
No, that exact character string is not in the Constitution, and it doesn't need to be given the multiple clauses disentangling religion and government.
"Separation of church and state" isn't in the Bible either, but Jesus drew the distinction repeatedly: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" in Matthew 22:21, and "My kingdom is not of this world" is John 18:36.
>there is constitutional protection to practice whatever relgion you choose - but that's as far as it goes.
The very same sentence of the First Amendment prohibits setting up an official government church.
Article VI goes further yet: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
>he's effectively just saying "trust me".
"Put not your trust in princes" -- Psalm 146:3
"Trust but verify" -- Ronald Reagan
>Nobody can prevent it, not even the Judge.
What they can do is ask jurors during voir dire whether they'll vote to convict if that's where the facts point, and exclude from the jury anyone who intends to vote on whether they approve of the law.
In other words, the six or twelve people deciding whether you go to jail for violating $UNJUST_LAW are either unwilling to practice jury nullification, or they're dishonest enough to lie under oath.
If you've been called for jury duty you've heard exactly that question put to the prospective jurors.
Plants photosynthesize from visible light, and if you want particulates in the atmosphere just stop using scrubbers on power plants. And Mt. St. Helens was 24 megatons, the largest human test was 60 megatons (though everything in current arsenals is smaller).
Questions about data handling for solar forcing
The remaining uncertainties and where they come from
It's a problem that's easy to parallelize :-)
The most common explanation for the 1940-1970 temperature plateau is particulate pollution.
Ever been outdoors on a clear spring or winter night? It's colder without clouds. Clouds hold in heat on the night side.
Low-level clouds shade the ground but the reflected sunlight just warms up the lower atmosphere on its round trip. Very high clouds have a cooling effect, though.
Fortunately, the work on climate change is being done by people who understand these effects and who observe and refine numbers for them.
This is a local attack by an unprivileged thread, one that could not install a keylogger, read another user's files, or do much of anything except run its own code and measure the timing.
Offboard hardware acceleration would completely sidestep this particular attack.
:-)
Or keep the system so heavily loaded that the spy process can't tell whether it's sharing a BTB with the RSA computation or with one of the other N threads.
Or use a thread scheduler that assigns separate CPUs to crypto threads and to spyware threads